Abraham Lincoln
John F Kennedy
Lydon Johnson
Marin Luther King

Regarding addressing the issues of Civil Rights in ths country the above men standout in my mind. Their approach was not to call people racists (for Johnson, he didn't do it publicly and in some cases privately he used language most were uncomfortable with to get results).

I would have no problem calling a racist and racist, I don't use that kind of language lightly, especially if I were interested in a dialog. When I attempt to antagonize or when I lash-out at people in a uncontrolled manner - I call them names. It is juvenile, but I have been guilty of doing that.

It's interesting, several of the "issues" ace brought up in his post are for the most part non-issues for a lot of people. The problem is that the most vocal people tend to focus on those issues rather than real issues that affect this country. A lot of the major issues that always get discussed around election time like abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, and the like are personal type issues rather than major problems facing this country. I love how some people think that by stopping abortions or limiting gay rights, or stopping all gun ownership would miraculously solve all problems in the country. The truth is they are distractions that bog down debates, polarize people, and get in the way of the real problems.

I really wish both parties would just cut the crap and realize that a lot of people don't really care about those things.

you know what, ace? i'm done with you here. you're defending a position the sole function of which is to undercut (in some imaginary world) the utter stupidity of what juan williams said. i find it beyond bizarre that you've gone as far as you've gone in an apparent quest to shuck any responsibility for stupidity on williams' part and, seemingly, on your own.

btw i take this sort of discussion really personally.
i've laid out in the past some of the reasons why.
i am not interested in your pathetic attempts to normalize bigotry. nor am i interested in normalizing routine conservative racism. i would far prefer to marginalize it. i would prefer to use it to push conservative back under the cultural rock they crawled out from under.
and i couldn't care less about "converting" people like you. so far as i am concerned, if you are amenable to being "converted" to thinking like a rational being, i am not the person to undertake the task.
i dont care about "dialogue" with bigots.
call it a limitation.

(slight buzz this time)

WILLIAMS: But when I get on a plane, I gotta tell ya, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

I know exactly who Juan is talking about here, and you all do as well. There is nothing remotely bigoted about this. If any of you found yourselves on a plane watching more than 2 guys traveling together looking like this:

Muslim Beard Styles – How to Choose the Right Beard depends upon which sect you belong. By Anas Abbas AA@Counter Terrorism, Imperialism, Extremism and Bigotry

...you would all pay just a bit more attention to their behavior. Is there really any doubt this is who Juan was referring to by “Muslims in Muslim garb identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims”.

Posting pictures of muslims working as cooks, playing tennis, and running on the beach in cute bikini's might be running through your head as a defense mechanism in the moment, but here it's nothing more than a really weak effort at patting yourself on the back for an attempt at not being bigoted and defending NPR for unjustly firing someone who didn't tow the line.

With all the talk about this not being about free speech and expecting a reaction up to and including being fired, I feel like I need to remind you all to your lack of reaction to, of all people, the VP:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

“In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

This is about free speech. Liberal pack mentality shouting and accusing people of bigotry in an effort to “marginalize the other”, controlling the language their allowed to use to avoid being accused of being a bigot (switch sides and be a bigot all you want, of course).

matthew,

Maybe it should be mandatory for all Muslims to wear "Muslim garb" and Muslim beard styles so that they're all easily identifiable. That way we can all pay more attention to their behaviour.

And about your comments on the VP: I'm beginning to hear bells and birdsong. I think it's that damn "quoque clock" again.

Tu quoque! Tu quoque!


A question: Are you attempting to rationalize wholesale Islamophobia?

If your definition of "islamaphobia" is being concerned watching a middle eastern gentlemen with a traditional islamic beard walking down the jetway whilst shaving his armpits and mumbling "Allah is great", I suppose yes I am defending that.

This particular gentleman regardless of his obvious intentions, would probably take comfort knowing the american left would never identify him for what he is.

Okay, so you are defending irrationality. Neat.

I like how you even used it to defend it. It's kind of like the Ouroboros. Which is really neat.

Folks - I am, evidently, Islamaphobic . Shut me down - the world will be a much better place.
....and yes, i'm a victim living painfully in conservative-land. It hurts. Looking forward to hearing that for the 1500th time.

how muslimy does this person need to look before your afraid he/she will blow them self up ?

beard + dark complexion
beard/mustache + ?
long scraggly beard/mustache + Obie Wan Kenobi robes ?
hair veil ?
burka ?
full black burka with eye slit ?

I would venture to say that, if push came to shove most strongly religious people in America would put religion before country, I mean dang, that's one of the biggest reasons people immigrated here in the first place.

do you keep an eye on him the whole flight/bus ride/whatever ?

I mean honestly the thought of him blowing himself up would come to my mind too (too much Bevis and Butthead), but thoughts of the war in general would also come up like over 1,000,000 civilian Muslims have died in these wars. the craziness of religious zealotry in all cultures, all the things that create the xenophobia in the world today.

the thing is I don't entertain these thoughts, I know these are childish 'boogeyman' fears. it's just silly.

what is this, a visual cue a Muslim is about to explode/wip out a box cutter knife ?

what are these intentions ? what is he ? what are the odds this guy is just a father intending to go home to his family ?

Fact is, you don't whether anyone regardless of how they look is going to be a danger to you. It doesn't take a particularly enlightened person to realize that not only Arabs and black guys are killing people in this world. Yet, apparently it takes an inordinate amount of rational thought to keep oneself from slipping into a paranoid fit whenever they see an 'Arab looking all Muslimy' on a plane.

I suggest that any who feels that way not go back and re-watch those airport security cameras of the 9/11 hijackers before they got onto the planes. Then you might find yourself freaking out over all the Hispanic or vaguely Mediterranean-looking guys with button-down collars and chinos, too. Unless, of course, you are convinced that you can tell a Greek from an Italian from a Puerto Rican from a Spaniard from a Lebanese from a Pakistani, etc., etc., etc. with absolute certainty. Maybe, to be safe, you should just stay home. Board yourselves in even.

I understand many of you liberals would like to live in a world where people who don't share you same opinions board themselves up, I'm sorry that won't be happening. In fact - I've been to 10 different cities in 4.5 weeks - from Tucson, to Tampa, to NYC and everywhere in between.

So while you're on a plane struggling to protect your "sensibilities" and not calling out what you know should be called out because what doesn't look right also happens to look too obviously muslim, and might be construed as profiling, it'll probably be someone much like myself that ends up helping the situation.

your saying your gonna spot the next shoe bomber ?

...

OH looky, another liberal saying the exact same freaking thing, which happens to be completely inaccurate.
You're a bigot Jay. So there, go home now (spongebob's on!)

...

Not only that but he deliberately avoids the fact that he is as hopelessly vulnerable as anyone else when it comes to protecting himself from danger in the world. He salves this 'weakness' with ideas that he can 'see it coming' by picking out 'the obvious.' Maybe even being the hero that saves the plane because he was nervy enough to pick out the guy in the keffiyeh.

But it's like telling children the people they need to worry about most are old men in trenchcoats. Living under those kinds of assumptions doesn't make a person more safe. But it does make them look like a fool.

That said, matthew is deliberately provocative. He'd say anything to get attention. He probably trolls conservative boards as a radical liberal.

Oh Jay, I thought telling you spongebob was on might entice you home. Can't win them all I guess.
Mixedmedia, seriously? The two of you call me a bigot and I'm provocative?

BTW - you'll recall the ticket agent in Maine who service Mohammed Atta when he departed for Boston recalled this individual as soon as the plane blew up because of how "evil" he looked. Like he wanted to kill him. He recalled feeling guilty for thinking what he had about him when he realized the he died in that plane, before he realized it was him that hijacked it. THat doesn't sound like someone who's #1 priority is "blending in". Sometimes you have to pay attention to the obvious.

not at all, in fact being American means I'm used to living in a "melting pot" of varied ideas and cultural orientations, it's what is supposed to make America great.

I have no interest in 'boarding you up or 'shutting you down'.

honestly in my daily life I don't encounter Muslims that are dressed up like they just walked out of Afghanistan or wherever. I mostly encounter white people, Mexicans a few black and Asian people. I work construction and metal fabrication. I drive to work and drive home. so, my day to day isn't that racially challenging. either way I learned a long time ago ya can't judge a book by it's cover.

And I never said one muslim man is going to get me nervous. If I see multiple men traveling together who all (let me use Juans words) are first and foremost identifying themselves as Muslim - I will be more aware of their behavior than granny two seats up. If you think that's bigoted, you're idiotic. I'm done pointing out the obvious - you'll never get it because your much too concerned with proving to yourselves I'm bigoted.

Painful...oh so painful.

lol, I don't care weather your bigoted or not.

hey that's what I thought about George Bush, Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld !! and look what they did ! lol, what a coinkidink

I never called you a bigot. Not that it would surprise me if you are.

I said you say things that are deliberately provocative in order to get people to respond to your posts. You see a lot of that kind of posting on politics boards. Because politics boards are also full of frothy-mouthed liberals who love responding to them. It's a symbiotic thing. Doesn't really fit this format, though.

...

But that doesn't even make sense. You're just being foolish if you think the next airplane bomber is going to be garishly playing the "Check me out, I'm a devout muslim" card. That would be idiotic. Chances are, if a passenger is "muslim in appearance" that person will have already received 5 times as much scrutiny as you or I would ever receive at an airport.

I don't think you're a bigot. You're just someone who's been goaded by fear into embracing irrational suspicions of his fellow countrymen. It's pretty standard stuff, though if you'd like you can write me off as a liberal so you don't have to think about what I wrote.

I never said I thought the next airplane bomber was going to be a devout Muslim. Never.

I actually like MixedMedia's metaphor, suggesting that what I'm saying is like telling children the people they need to worry about the most are old men in trenchcoats.

The way I see it, it's more like you all telling little children: It's more like you all are saying to little children: Of course you should go say hi to old men in trenchcoats when my back is turned. If they were REALLY child molesters, they would never dress like that.

Let's tally: twice a bigot, twice a fool/foolish, and the little supercanadians meltdown. I'm so provocative.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- No name calling

Goes for everyone in this thread, not just Matthew.

Keep it civil folks.

The secret to taking someone else's words and twisting them around to make your argument is coming up with something that actually makes some sense.

When you said I didn't make sense, then read what I said, but what you said made no sense. ZERO. then twisting of words when you said it, and tried to say that I said it the children in trenchcoats. PERIOD.

you can go home now too MixedMedia.

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

..............and I wouldn't have gone back and edited my post and deleted the extra line, when you pointed it out. It wouldn't have made any sense to people reading through, and I'm not a pussy like that.

...

I wasn't referring to the extra line. I understood what you wrote, just saying that it didn't make sense. I sincerely hope you don't have any children because anyone with any goddamn sense knows that you can't profile a potential threat by their age or the clothes they are wearing.

I can see where it would be helpful to you for me to go home, though.

what is all this 'you can go home now' and 'shutting you down' bs ?
is that any way to have a conversation ? sounds more like a schoolyard bully talk.

people can't come to these conversations with an " I'm right, your wrong" attitude or it just serves no purpose at all. for either side.
I doubt Atta was wearing 'traditional Muslim garb" when he walked up to the ticket agent, but I'll will agree he was probably giving off some bad vibes (for lack of any better terminology) so, sometimes you gotta trust your gut. in his mug shots he did look like a scary dude. I will give you that. but I doubt the ticket agent had any information or the authority to do anything about it.

since we're wandering off to sex offenders, the last 4-5 announcements on my local news have been profiled as mid 20's white males with knit hats.

I think matt needs a hug, he lives in a very scary world that forces him to act tough and premptively dismiss people because he's afraid they might hurt him.

I used to. Then posts like #131 and - for that matter - #40 became too common for my tastes. And I'd notice an implicit divide between the trolls and the respected trolls - those who got called on bad posts and those who didn't. It's very conducive to eschewing paragraphs of thoughtful elaboration for pithy 'hit-and-runs', since they're increasingly likely to get just about the same quality of response.

Add in blatant isolated incidents like World's King blatantly - and stupidly - flaming a better poster and apparently getting away with it, and you have my theory for cyn's thread about why TFP is in decline.

I don't often see myself exhibiting this posting style elsewhere. I guess it's contagious.

boink to answer your question:

what is all this 'you can go home now' and 'shutting you down' bs ?
is that any way to have a conversation ? sounds more like a schoolyard bully talk.


MixedMedia told me what I said didn't make sense. Didn't say why - just that my post didn't make sense. Where exactly did you want me to take that conversation?
Right - nowhere (and ironically from someone who was trying to instruct me on the "format" that is acceptable here).

So if that wtas he dialogue she wanted to have, rather than try to guess why she thinks my point didn't make sense and argue nothing, I told her she can pick up her toys and go home.

That simple.

...

Sorry I didn't spell it out.

There is no correlation that I can see between being watchful of 'Muslimy' people on planes and telling children to say hi to old men in trenchcoats 'behind your back.' Plus, it still assumes that these people are inherently more dangerous than others because of the way they look, in particular due to the clothes they are wearing. I really am sorry to keep using the word 'fool' to describe these things, but it is foolish. If anything a person could open themselves up to more danger by not being observant of real threats.

I am a watchful person. I don't walk around in a blissful state trustful of everyone I see. Sometimes I encounter people that I (on an instinctive level) don't want to be around. But I haven't found that be a racial or ethnically specific phenomena. If you allow paranoia or irrational fear to replace your own instincts you only open yourself up to 1) unwarranted stress and 2) like I said, missing real threats.

Donate $100 to a charity for every time you have written that.


There are a number of people who are not affiliated with Fox News and who are liberal who have supported Williams also - what do you say to them?

And how do you feel about devote evangelical Christians in Congress? Is it your preference that they not be in Congress? Why? Are you a bigot?


Is there a difference between conservative racism and liberal (or whatever the opposite of conservativism is in your mind) racism?

So, are you saying you want all conservatives to crawl under some figurative rock? Is this a form of bigotry? Are all conservatives bad people in your mind? Why?

You give yourself far too much credit. With your approach you could not possibly convert or persuade me of anything.

I hope you are prepared for the future violence that will follow from such a narrow view of open dialog.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------

Why not address what is obvious about this issue?

---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

So, what information do you use from your environment in order to minimize controllable risks?

Once I went to Bingo with my grandmother, I observed my environment and came to one conclusion regarding risk. The next night I went to a Club and came to a different conclusion regarding risk. I used information from my environment, including my observations of people - what do you do? Do you just go through life thinking everything is a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10? Does it make you a bigot if your number goes up to 9 in a certain situation?

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

Yes. If he/she is within my sight and they start acting abnormally, I am going to spot them - and act. Are you suggesting that you won't? Are you saying that you are not going to pay attention? Perhaps I don't understand the question.

first off i apologize for going that far in the post you responded to here, ace.

i do in fact take this particular line of conversation quite personally and sometimes the fact that parallel attitudes have had and continue to have unsettling consequences for people i am personally close to gets the better of me.

plus there's a degree of transferred frustration--i'd like to be able to wave a wand and vaporize what i see as a residual racism that derives from the hysteria that surrounded the "hostage crisis" in iran, so is really an element of the neo-conservative origin mythology, given that it was that hostage crisis and its packaging that i think explains why ronald reagan was elected more than any other single thing. but there seems to be no way of doing that, and sometimes that becomes frustrating and sometimes that frustration gets the better of me. that's what happened here.

when the thread started, it was about juan williams getting fired and the way the paliny ultra-right was trying to frame it as yet another instance of conservative victimization by setting williams up as someone who Stood Up to Political Correctness and Spoke About Reality. which i found funny, really. are you serious? was my initial reaction.

then it got a degree of traction and the positions shifted in the direction of people who support fox news--say---or who support the positions outlined by o-reilly et al, and so who are amenable to the ongoing creation of us/them stuff and the routine verbal abuse of muslims that are of a piece with it now try to defend not what williams said but the worldview that may have allowed for that to be said.

and that's where we are now. i don't see this getting anywhere, either. i think on this the differences in assumptions/viewpoints are simply too basic to allow for any motion.

but (again) this isn't a conversation about juan williams any more. it's about whether it's ok to hold what amount to racist views/bigoted views---or (another way) it's about one's relation to the abstraction "the war on terror" and of that abstraction to the construction of the Enemy that comes with it. folk who are suspicious of it vs. those who aren't. and it seems that once again this lands us back in the strange little world of identity politics.

yes is no up is down slavery is freedom war is peace.

sometimes discussions are like a chess game. you can play them out to the bitter end and end up with a king and a pawn chasing around another king and a pawn. or you can suss out the strategic situation and see from that what's likely to happen. better players will opt out of a game well before the bitter end if the strategic situation makes the outcome uninteresting by making it inevitable. sometimes i think we collectively play threads like 6th graders at chess. i think we'd be well served by working out a better way to end games.

Who said it is o.k.? First, some people are acknowledging fears, including Williams. Some see those fears as irrational and some have yet to come to that conclusion. There has been support of the use of "free speech" to air these issues without being called a bigot or a racist or arrested by the "PC" police. And, I firmly believe an open and honest dialog is important to get beyond irrational fears including the irrational fear of peace loving Muslims.

What part of anything I said infers that I don't adapt to my environment while gauging threat risks? I've never thought about how I gauge threats in my environment, but I think it is based on equal parts of observation of an individual's behavior and instinct. But I sense you are trying to cloud the issue.

The basic question is and let's not forget it:
Do you suspect someone to be more of a threat to you on a plane because they are 'dressed like a Muslim'? I do not. If you do, then fine. But whether you like it or not, you are subscribing to an -ism by basing your fears on who or 'what' a person is rather than how they are behaving. It's a pretty classic definition.

Throughout this thread I read that an irrational fear is unacceptable, I agree, but there is not agreement on how to deal with it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, irrational ignorance is also unacceptable in my view. There is a space where we can acknowledge and understand real threats without being irrational on either end. I can think of many circumstances where it would be reasonable and not be irrational to have fear of Muslims in traditional attire on a plane. Your position does not seem to allow for this.

I am trying to illustrate what is a human response.
I am trying to illustrate the importance of acknowledging fear.
I am trying to illustrate the potential consequences of the pretense of not having fear. On this last point, I grew up in a culture where you would never under any circumstance acknowledge fear. If you did, you risked being ostracized at best or even worse by others. Being an adult and looking back on it, it is clear to see how this culture of "no fear" lead to bad behavior, and poor decisions. Ironically, it usually took one courageous person to say he feared, for others to say, yes, I fear also - this lead to rational behavior. Find a 12 year-old boy who looks you in the eye and says, "I ain't afraid of anything", and you have found an irrational person prone to poor decisions and potential violence. If we could look into the eye of this nation and the response is, "I ain't afraid of anything", we have a problem. If the response is - "I am afraid of....Muslims on a plane" we have a starting point to resolve the problem.

Neither do I. How they are dressed has nothing to do with my fear. My fear is based on a declared war, expressed threats, and past activities. Others may have different fears. If I had a forum to express my biggest concern with the broader Muslim community, I would let them know that I am disappointed by the lack of action within their community to end or help end acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. I often do not feel we are on the same team. That is my biggest fear in this context. Do you have any fears in this context?

Why should random individuals of the muslim faith be held accountable for your epistemic failures, ace?

Look at it this way - most wolves could careless about me, try to avoid me and most likely do me no harm. However, they have the capacity to do me harm and if I don't respect that capacity, I would be a fool. On the other-hand my wife has a friend who has a couple of bishon frises...

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...QFmWtboQF3VlI=

when I visit, I have "no fear".:thumbsup:

Restating your epistemic failure isn't an answer to my question.

Yeah, good question. After the Oklahoma City bombing I don't remember a bunch of people running around freaked out at every thin white guy they saw.

I will state again, if I had a forum to communicate to the general Muslim population my concern primarily is with, in many cases, what I would categorize as passive approval-the end result being the small number of extremists defining the entire population. I thought my example artfully illustrated that.

No doubt there have been many in the fight against terrorist acts carried out in the name of the religion, but then there are these types of reports:



Yemeni students protest parcel bomb arrest

I don't know if the arrest was proper or not, time will tell - but my outrage is targeted to those who made the attempt, not those trying to find out who was involved. Are we on the same team? Do we have the same goals? I don't know, we need a dialog to gain a better understanding in my opinion. Just as some may have an irrational fear of Muslims, there are Muslims who have an irrational fear of us.

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 PM ----------

I did see a nation outraged. I did see a nation seeking swift justice. I did see a nation morn the death of babies. I did see people of all ideologies and faiths denounce the use of violence. It was virtually unanimous. Didn't you see that?
Was there any instance of support for this bombing, anywhere? Even from the most extreme? Can you share a source, if there was one?

Did I ask if the nation wasn't outraged? Did I ask if the nation did not morn? Did I state there was support for this act or the ideologies behind it? Though to be honest there was some support among the militia groups in this country. But that was never my point.


I asked, basically, why weren't "people freaked out at every thin white guy they saw." I mean if you're going to go around supporting profiling why wasn't that profile profiled?

It seems impossible to pin you down to a single opinion on this matter, ace.

To me you say that irrational fears need to be expressed so that they can be dispelled. Now you seem to be rationalizing them.

So your answer to my question is "If only I could tell those muslims to stop letting me think all these tingly things about muslims then I wouldn't have to think all these tingly things about these muslims." Yep, I'm sure all these moderate muslims are just waiting for some random dude from the internet to tell them that he personally doesn't think they've taken a public enough stand against extremism for him to not feel uncomfortable when he sees them dressed all muslim-ey. You should rent one of those planes that spell out messages with smoke. You could have the plane spell out something like "Hey muslims, are we cool?"

As I implied before, your inability to correctly suss out the give and take between cause and effect has nothing to do with muslims. Why should they have to answer for your ignorance of them? Why do you think you understand how muslims feel about islamic extremism? How could you possibly be ignorant of the multitude of muslims who've come out against extremism? Here's a hint: they don't typically end up on Rush.

Who gets the focus of your outrage couldn't be less relevant here. It doesn't matter in the context of this discussion. The fact that you think it does means you've misread me. The fact that you think the situation could be simplified if only you could just sit down and have a dialogue with muslims means you have a fundamental misunderstanding about reality. Really, that doesn't even make sense.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you don't know shit about the situation in Yemen, nor the competence of Yemeni officials or their propensity to arrest someone because they want to appear to be doing something. When one doesn't know shit about a situation, the most advisable course of action is to refrain from comment, lest people assume that you're the type to drone on about things you don't understand.

I attempted to illustrate the difference between what I consider passive approval of an act and the opposite.


There are some circumstance where I would be on guard but I generally don't get "freaked out". After the bombing we did profile, we identified people who fit the profile and they where investigated, monitored and watched.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

My opinion is that an open and honest dialog will help eliminate irrational fears, including irrational fears of Muslims.

I am saying I have fears. My fears may be irrational. The nature of personal fears is that the individual who has them often does not know.

I can see when another has an irrational fear when it involves something I have intimate experience with, however I do not have intimate experience with the Muslim culture. If I am not allowed to explore the Muslim culture in the context of my fears, I will never know.

I admit my fears, I share my fears and by doing show I open the door for others to help resolve them. Again, using the Iraq war, I remember many exchanges where I would clearly state that I felt Saddam was a threat, before, during and after the war. You can read what the responses were by doing a search. At the end of the day, Bush shared my fears and many others did also. Saddam rather than acting in a manner to minimize those fears he acted in a provocative manner. I see that an opportunity for a peaceful resolution was missed. Was my response to the perceived threat irrational? Was "machismo" the cause of poor decision making? I see these as serious questions, perhaps beyond the scope of a forum like this. But ultimately we can not pretend away the fact that millions in this country have similar fears to the fears expressed by Williams.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

If they don't care, if you don't care - so be it. You've said it in so many words, perhaps they should rent a plane and spell out that they don't care what I think with smoke. Once that is resolved we can move on to the next step - how is that for a plan?

They are under no obligation.

I don't.

I get mixed messages from them, I see some speaking out against the use of terror, I see many being passive, and I see some celebrate the violence or anti-western sentiment.


Yes, your answer is to silence people like me, ridicule people like me, pretend that you are above anything that can be an irrational fear - I got that.

We disagree on the way problems get solved.

ace, so you're basically arguing that because there are racists whose racism is animated by fear that therefore it's legitimate to be a racist.

so presumably to oppose racism is to discriminate against racists.

which would mean that you are defending the "right" of racists to be racist publicly---because you want to use this "argument" to oppose npr's firing of juan williams.

so then there can be no problem with racism, really. instead, there should be some vague "dialogue" which would somehow "take seriously" the fears of racists and make them "feel better" about the things that prompt their racism. of course since there's neither form nor content to this "dialogue" we can only assume it'd be interminable.

and all that would happen in it really is that the political onus placed by most rational people on racism would be erased, and for it would be substituted some bizarre-o therapeutic regimen designed, presumably, by yourself, with the sole function of enabling you to "argue" that juan williams shouldn't have been fired for expressing what is basically a racist sentiment.

i'm amazed that you insist on this loopy position.

i'm less amazed that you repeatedly dodge the consequences of your own argument, however, because that's clearly how you roll.

and that is why i thought the tea party clip above pertinent here. the "argumentation" mode from the tea partier in it is the same.

Well whatever you did or tried to do you never answered my question... still haven't.

It is not legitimate to be racist.

Racism is a real condition, often caused by some irrational fear - there are other causes but that is not the issue here.

A racist condition can be changed.

An open and honest dialog is the best way to resolve a racist condition.

To the contrary, ridicule, attempt to silence, and pretense make the problem worse.

Why are these points not clear?

You are getting to the point of being absurd, because you know what my point is but you insist on putting effort into trying to mock my points. I consider this silliness. At some point I will most likely respond in-kind. Is this your goal?

I was a young child when Malcom X was murdered. I have read his biography and many of his speeches. The man evolved in a manner for the world to see. At one point he was a racist. Before his death he was not. We benefited from his public evolution - so yes, I defend the "right" of a racist to be racist publicly. And as my grandmother told me - it is always better when racists are openly racist rather than having people be undercover racists. I stated the Williams termination is not the issue.

Isn't easier just to read what I write? How much effort does it take for you to go through one of these exercises. Pure silliness.

i go through the exercise ace because your "arguments" are ridiculous.
and you simply refuse to admit problems with your positions.
in this case, it's funny because you're whining about "wanting a dialogue" while seeming to be yourself entirely incapable of carrying on a dialogue.

this happens over and over. you might think about it.

clarification: when i use the word "legitimate" i don't mean "good" in the sense of "yay racism." what i mean is that there's something worth taking seriously that shapes racist positions. i reject the idea that there is anything worth taking seriously about racism. i like hate crime legislation in the european style to address racist speech.

As a child I watched a cartoon called Casper the Friendly Ghost. Casper was a ghost who carried the baggage of ghosts being scary. As the title suggests Casper was a friendly ghost and meant no one any harm. He often befriended a character who carried no irrational fear of ghosts. His sort-term friendships often got interrupted when another character with an irrational fear would "freak-out". Casper had three uncles who often used Capser's attempts to befriend people to scare the sh*t out of those people for fun. Casper ahd a responsibility to deal with his plight, and he did the best he could, but he understood that he had a responsibility.

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

An open and honest dialog can help end irrational fear. In your mind that is ridiculous.

People having irrational fears. In your mind that is ridiculous.

A person may possibly not know that their fear is irrational. In your mind that is ridiculous.

People in this country have a irrational fear of Muslim. In your mind that is ridiculous.

Etc.

Etc.


O.k., I understand your position. We disagree. Now what?

---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

In my opinion your approach fails.


Make it illegal and that will stop it???Make racism illegal and people will stop being racists???Make it illegal for people to say something that may be racist and that will stop racist comments? Make irrational fear illegal, and people will stop having irrational fear? Is this your line of thought on this subject?

1000 words

Does this mean you agree with me, as should everyone else?

...

One major flaw in your plan, Ace, is that it is predicated on the assumption that people (maybe even most people) don't know when their fears are irrational. From my experience people know damn good and well when they have racist views and they keep them willingly because they find them gratifying. Perhaps it gives them a false sense of control over their environment...free from being at the mercy of random, unforeseeable circumstances. But you see people hang onto these assumptions beyond all reason and in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. It is deliberate. I don't think you can 'educate' these people away from their prejudices. They like having them.

I haven't given a lot of thought to hate speech legislation before, but one immediate benefit that comes to mind would be that it sets a very clear and definitive standard for American public dialogue, esp. on the airwaves. It will not, of course, stop people from believing what ever stupid shit they want to believe, but it will prevent them from going on the air and trying to influence others with their poisonous talk. I have no problem whatsoever with America having a standard that says, this is what America is about when it comes to hate. They learned a good lesson on this subject in Rwanda.

MM -

Yes, but the only speech that needs protection is the speech that is difficult to hear. We as a society can reject abhorent speech, and we do all the time. When we allow the government to define it and control it, we will invariably slide that line until true freedom of speech is eliminated.

Instead, we must use those same public air waves to adamantly object to the hateful speech and expose the author for the bigot he is. I think that is what is happening with Williams, although there hasn't been any real penalty other than a career change.

but juan williams was not prosecuted for anything. he violated the professional code of conduct he signed when he took the job at npr. period.

there's no violation of freedom of speech in this.

so far as i can see, mostly what's happened is what you'd support, cimmaron.

ace is arguing a different "point" and isn't having a terribly good time of it because the premise is really very strange. however it is an aspect of the tea-party/palin right defense of williams---which is really about increasing fox news market-share (are all the main players in the tea party pundit space also on fox/s payroll?)---and to use it as yet another instanciation of the far right's Problem with npr.

which is about red-baiting, nothing more nothing less.


but the only reason i (speaking for myself) have been bothering with ace's "argument" is that it's a repeat of a talking point. he can't defend it. i don't think it's defensible. i don't think it's even supposed to be defensible. it was meant to last a news cycle or 3 and disappear. it didn't have to be logical. it just had to get traction for a little while. that's how conservative media strategy has worked for a long time. get traction. nothing else matters.

rb-

I suppose I was responding to the suggestion that speech such as what Juan said should be determined by the government to be "hate speech" and that there should be some punishment put down by the government. That is something I would oppose for fear that one day our protest, whatever it is, would be deemed the same and squashed.

It is unfortunate that what he said wasn't soundly rejected by both sides, and that was the end of it. Frankly, I think NPR was a little to quick on the draw. If they had delayed their decision, I think it would have probably played out with Juan apologizing and we all would have been back to business as usual. It was only in the firing, that all of this has risen to scandal. Everyone in the media jumped to sides a little too early, and the sides are a little too extreme.

We have given privately to NPR for several years because I believe they have a place in our nation - that and Fiona on Thistle and Shamrock. I have struggled with the federal funding issue because it conflicts with "my role of federal government" versus "the public need to promote the arts".

I tend to have difficulty with what NPR did in this matter because it was for political speech that they sacked him. By political, I mean it was political context, not the actual bigoted statement. So, while I like the idea of some public funding for arts, NPR does have quite a bit of politics on their air and it does start to rub me that public funds goes to it and that they then censored their political speech, in a way, on a publicly funded airwave. Overall, I think the benefit of having their arts available outweighs my distaste for the existence of politics in their realm - that and Fiona.

yes, but this only works when the listening, or watching public is educated enough to make sense of it all. more and more it seems they arn't.

Juans 'penalty' is a windfall bonus of a massive 2+ million dollar contract from a propaganda organization. who, in ironic turn will argue to shut down more free speech by defending NPR.

well, cimmaron, the question of how npr proceeded is different from that of whether they had grounds to do it. and i think the apology for the how that was issued a day or two after the firing covers that, yes? i mean i never enjoyed williams' work on npr---he annoyed me in the way cokie roberts did when she waxed conservative, but was always far less informed than cokie roberts---but had i been in charge of things at npr, i wouldn't have fired him on the phone.

but i likely would have pulled the trigger earlier because i think that taking gigs on fox news is a priori a violation of journalistic ethics---at least on the talking head shows like o-reilly. the shouting class. all that.

as far as public funding of something like npr---i think we'd be a whole lot better off as a society if the airwaves had remained really public and the corporate sector not been allowed to own media outlets at all. in the real world, this need not at all mean "state control of information"---information can be freer without the corporate sector. think the united states for an example of how private sector ownership of information outlets can be a very very bad thing. so i think it'd be crazy to privatize npr.

It's almost as ridiculous as the notion that you seem to have that your irrational fears of muslimy looking people would evaporate if only you could explain to them that your insecurities are their fault.

Then why do you think that your inability to perceive moderate on extremist muslim outrage is justification for your fear of muslimy looking people?

And these mixed messages make you get all tingly when you see someone who looks muslim because???


I don't want to silence you. Ridicule you? Yes. That is the appropriate way to respond to folks who obstinately and publicly use flawed reasoning to justify religious intolerance.

Of course I'm not above irrational fear. The key to getting away from irrational fears is recognizing that they're irrational and then, via the disinfecting light of critical thought, choose to stop being afraid. This is different from your method, which seems to be to recognize that your fears are irrational and then justify them with even more irrationality. Because you'd be less irrationally afraid of muslimy people if they could somehow unite and monolithically convince you that they abhor islamic extremism.

I understand that slippery slope. Like I said, I hadn't given it much thought. But, the standard of 'Americans rejecting hatred' is as not ubiquitous as it should be. Obviously. Nor is it in Europe where they have found reasonable cause to legislate against it. And, rather than moving forward into the new century with declining support for racist views, this is a time when you see more Americans rationalizing racial/religious/ethnic/cultural intolerance. That, too, is a slippery slope.

rb -

The trouble I have with Williams is his inconsistency. Whenever I hear him, just prior to his response, I can never predict the direction he would take his opinion. I admire men who remain consistent in their message, even if it is unpopular. I do feel as if he tailored his message (not his style) to his current audience. That's not pragmatism, that's hypocrisy. As I said at the beginning of the thread, I don't really care that NPR fired him because I think an employer should be able to hire and fire whomever they want.

boink -

I wonder if Fox did that as an F- You! to NPR?

One final word here, and nothing you ever read from me will be more important.

If you have a son/brother or any male child that you love, if they ever tell you about their fears, don't punish, ridicule, ostracize them, at first listen. Whenever a man openly talks about his fears and then acknowledge that those fears may be irrational, that man is doing a service, a good thing, he sends a message to young men and boys that having fears is normal, that it is normal to have internal conflict, that it is o.k. to verbalize those internal mental conflicts. Positive dialog that follows will resolve those internal mental conflicts. There is a big difference between those who really hate, and those who have irrational fears.

mm -

...and be sure to tell them not to verbalize those fears on national television when their jobs are on the line, that perhaps the privacy of your home is a safer forum.

right. so now juan williams---and by extension ace as well----are being put upon by mean old everything and everybody after they opened up and confessed some dark inner secret. because mean old everything is just so insensitive. bad bad mean old everything.


and who would confess to an inner fear in privacy when exhibitionism is o so much fun?

I really don't know what to say to this...

Are you saying that the secret to getting through to the tea party mentality when it comes to racial issues is to sit them down, listen to what they have to say and then dialog with them about their irrational fears so that I can then gently coax them into thinking like a liberal?

If so, then sign me up!

Will that work with their irrational fears about socialism and big government, too?

I realize that many of you don't get it, and I can't explain it. If you ever take a step back and take a broader look at the underlying issues that cause "racism" and violence let me know.

The first step is to try to understand the difference between the people who have a true inner hate for others and those who don't - but do have an irrational fear. People who do not have true inner hate can be helped in my experience. Most people who I think are being called "racists" here actually have irrational fears and can be helped.

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

...

People with irrational fears about a racial group are racist. Racism: negative prejudgment of people based on their race. It doesn't matter if they know their fears are irrational. It doesn't even matter if they are hateful about it or not. Plenty of racists do not go about sneering at Mexicans and defacing the neighborhood Mosque. It doesn't mean that they're going to change their views after getting a good talking to, either. Know why? Because they are sharing the views of their friends, family and to some extent, their communities.

Like rb mentioned way back, this is a very touchy subject for me, too, so it's not one that you're going find me giving a lot of leeway on. Racial prejudgment is one of the ugliest, most ignorant mental inclinations that people can indulge themselves in and I am hard pressed to find real respect for anyone does.

I think it is quite common for people to have somewhat irrational fears about those who are perceived to be different. However I recall Jesse Jackson once commented, “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

I suspect some Muslims may feel the same way as ace about other Muslims on the plane. I'm not trying to justify this way of thinking, just trying to better understand it.

<picks up the bat and walks over to the carcass>

I heard a Mexican comedian say, "There are two things I can't tolerate: racial profiling and muslims on my plane." I think it was Carlos Mencia.

<hands bat back to Ace>

if you have an irrational fear and realise it's irrational, why can't you just get over it ?

like a feeling or a desire you want something, but in fact can't afford it ? you KNOW you can't afford it and can't buy it, so you just chill and wait til next payday ?

I work with a kid who uses the term 'gay' all the time to denigrate another employee. I use this term sometimes but consciously try to avoid it, because it's just wrong (inaccurate, he's a creep, and useless, but not gay) and it's feeding the evil wolf little scraps (thanks for that analogy :) )

I'd like to know how to argue my co worker out of using that term...he's a bit of a macho little b-boy...a white kid. overall a nice kid but has issues inside himself with gays I guess.

I guess my basic question is why let an irrational thought take the lead in decision making ?

anyone 'strange' to me, Muslims who wear their faith overtly, Jews with the weird side burns, skinheads (actually, any punk rock kids with shaved heads cause I don't know what they're about) all downtown white people in suits ( I think they all work for banks that stole the worlds money, see Rolling Stone Goldman Sachs bubble article) they all case me to think all sorts of things, but I know it's all random thoughts not based in fact and 99% of the time has nothing to do with the particular individuals I happen to pass on the street.

I don't need to take a step back, I can recognize my irrational thoughts for what they are, I think those who CAN'T need to take a step back, or see a counselor or whatever it takes to get their inner child to stfu. i.e. think rationally.

I agree, my question has been what should be done to fix the problem.

Some don't realize their fear is irrational.
Some know but don't understand why.
Some just don't care.

I see three different methods needed to address each of the problems. Others don't - I think their approach has failed.

---------- Post added at 10:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

I would start by asking him questions about the issue to get him talking. Eventually his issues will surface. In many instances it is simply a peer pressure issue. Or, in order for a young man to show his "manlyness", he has to make jokes about gay men to impress his buddies. For some it is a much deeper issue, but I have a 13 year-old son and about a year ago he became very aware of gay people and he and his friends thought making fun of gay people was the funniest thing in the world. I talked to him about it. We have a neighbor who is about a year younger than my son who has some effeminate characteristics and my son on one occasion did nothing while this young man was getting bullied on the school bus everyday. We talked about that too, including the expectation that good people do not sit passively while others are being harmed. I saw this as a growing process for my son. He is not a bad person, he simply needed guidance and support. I suppose the PC police would want to hang him, figuratively.

Part of being an adult is not just saying everything that pops into your head, but instead modulating yourself. That's how Imus got fired a few years ago, by popping off without thinking. This is all a byproduct of the overall societal decline in decorum.

And in a perfect world...or perhaps when we enter


Until then we need to work with adults who perhaps don't get it. Oh, but my saying that means that I endorse bad behavior, yea right.

it's been going downhill ever since Beavis and Butthead hit the air. funny cause I think the idea is, see stupidity, laugh at it and rise above it. what seems to happen is, see stupidity, and go do stupid things.

Feel free to ignore me at this point.

But, for all those holier than thou folks who would never be irrational, have irrational fears, etc. is this you?

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Hea...es/DrS_9.6.jpg

I am not laughing at the ears, promise.

...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hL7HogamDV...tree_smile.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9etVnS4R1A...imeSpockSwings

even Spock has his inner demons, but ht's best when he keeps them in check...

I'm not going to look up pics of Data and Lore...:rolleyes:

Aren't you reading what people are writing? The suggestion that an ordinarily good person may have an irrational fear, is met with contempt and ridicule in this thread.

Not new to me. I reflect on things I have have done and I try to understand them. I have learned to talk about them. When I don't understand, I ask questions.

...

ace, I wasn't saying that people can't have non-rational fears. All I was saying is that you don't have to talk publicly about your nonrational feelings, demons or what-have-you. Some judgment should be exercised.

This post just proves that you either haven't been reading/understanding the responses to your posts or your deliberately mischaracterizing them to make yourself feel better.

My point from the very beginning is that it is better if there is an open or even a public dialog about these issues. How many millions of Americans share the fear Williams has? Is just sweeping it under the rug going to make it go away? I don't think so. Is calling people a "racist" going to make it go away? No. Is making it illegal going to make it go away? No. Are all the people who share this fear bad people? No. Are some bad people? Yes.

My second point is that males in particular are taught to suppress their fears, I argue that this is not healthy - I argue that this often leads to violence or to poor decision making. Adult men can serve as a role model, we have to let young men in particular know that it is o.k. to have fears, to have inner conflicts and that it is o.k. to talk about it. NPR has every right to fire Williams, I just see what he did in a positive light. I would be proud to have a professional association with him no matter how much we disagreed on issues.

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

I disagree. I think some of you are from Venus and I am from Mars or something like that, I always try my best to answer questions.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 PM ----------

My assumption is that people are imperfect, including me. Given flaws, my first assumption is not that a person is a "racist" if they make a racially offensive comment. Some here, explicitly said they make that assumption.

I think there is a difference between people who have real hatred for certain groups of people in their heart and people who may have fears that are not rational. My position on this has not been accepted here by many - I find that amazing because the truth in the statement is so obvious. My conclusion is that there is some impossibly high standard they expect everyone to live up to and I question if they always live up to that mythical standard in their own lives.

I have not mischaracterized anything. In fact one of the reasons we are beating a dead horse, is for me to try to really understand what is being said. At this point it is clear.

Somebody, please....

Ace, I was at a meeting today where one of the attendees was a very good looking woman with ginormous tatas. I'm sure other men in the meeting noticed and that taking note of her attractive face and big wazoombas is very common.

But none of us talked about it. Even though I'm sure all of us would have liked for her to show us what she has.

We exercise judgment. Just because we think something or have feelings about it doesn't mean we have to discuss it publicly.

See what I mean? Just because someone has what he realizes is an irrational fear of someone in Muslim garb doesn't mean he has to discuss it on TV. Poor judgment.

If you are not interested why read this thread or a posting from someone who bores you? I don't understand the message you are trying to send. Are you suggesting I have a problem because I am repetitive, simplistic, use bad analogies and have mediocre writing skills at best, all of which I know and live with. And, I even recall writing that at some point I would respond with silliness - and I even recall writing that some may want to start ignoring my posts on this subject when it became clear to me that I had nothing new or insightful to add. So, I don't get your post.

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

I get that. But what about the guy who actually has a problem with being sexist and unprofessional. How does society help that guy? this guy may be beyond help, I agree and may need to be sued or put in jail. But if that guy never learned proper decorum - why wouldn't you talk to him - even if you needed to confront his behavior publicly to stop him from abusing another human-being. If I managed a group of guys going into a setting where there is a risk of that kind of poor behavior - I would meet with them and talk about acceptable behaviors before the event, not putting one person on the spot. Isn't that what being an adult is about too?

...

"Ace, I was at a meeting today where one of the attendees was a very good looking woman with ginormous tatas. I'm sure other men in the meeting noticed and that taking note of her attractive face and big wazoombas is very common.

But none of us talked about it. Even though I'm sure all of us would have liked for her to show us what she has.

We exercise judgment. Just because we think something or have feelings about it doesn't mean we have to discuss it publicly.

See what I mean? Just because someone has what he realizes is an irrational fear of someone in Muslim garb doesn't mean he has to discuss it on TV. Poor judgment."

If the purpose of the meeting was to discuss stereotyping of women, you all absolutely should have brought up what you were feeling. Not toward her as an individual, but it would have not only been appropriate for each of you to discuss your reactions, it would have been a pointless meeting had you not.

HOWEVER, I doubt you meeting was about that. So it would have been weird for one of you to blurt out "I WANT TO SEE HER BOOBS!", just as it would have been weird had if Juan and the crew were discussing the election and he blurted out "I"M AFRAID OF MUSLIMS ON PLANES!"

I'm not going to hold my breath for Palin, O'Reilly et al to come out in defense of Keith Olbermann, who is being punished for using his constitutional right to political speech and "communicating" something that a lot of people agree with.

filtherton,

I don't know this story. What is Olbermann being punished for?

Yeah, I just found it. Sounds good to me. Just like Juan, you break the rules of your employer, you pay the price. He'll be back in a week, they need him more than he needs them.

wow, I have a little more respect for MSNBC now...I mean Obe is generally on my side of an argument but upholding impartiality is important.

too bad they don't practice this ideal over at the faux news crisco party for the Gang Of Perverts.

Maddow talked about this the other night. FoxNews has no rules about this whatsoever (obviously)